Talk:The Hobbit

Individuation
This edit repeats the first sentences of Themes. Strebe (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Merged the two. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

"Little Hobbit" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Little Hobbit and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Elvenking, Erebor, Esgaroth.svg

Titular vs Eponymous
Bilbo is not the eponymous character, that has a very specific meaning. He is the titular character. We’ve had this discussion before, please see the archives for more information. GimliDotNet (talk) 05:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a heads-up: if you expect titular character to explain the difference between "eponymous character" and "titular character" for unaware readers, it does not. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

As a further nugget of info, there exists plenty of web sites that claim "titular" needs to involve a title, sparking a debate whether "hobbit" should be consider a title like "king" or "boss".

These are wrong, or at the very least, incomplete. While many definitions of "titular" involve titles, not all of them do. It's sufficient the thing is named after something. It doesn't have to be titled after something, and it doesn't have to be named after a title.

In this case, the book's title is referring to our particular hobbit, so he is the title character, and "Hobbit" being a title doesn't matter. And our book doesn't bear his name, so he is not an eponymous character.

CapnZapp (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

recent edit summary
...that reads "true, but we must be very brief in these summaries, avoiding all minor details (I'm aware both that there are many, and that people love them to bits, but we still don't have space for them)" is using unfortunate phrasing.

First off, we are an online encyclopedia, not a printed work, so the whole "no space" idea is basically nonsense, but whatever, I'm not here to discuss that. What I would like to suggest is to drop the "we must" as if you're talking down to a child. One editor made the judgement call "hides it in his coat pocket" is sufficiently important to be included. Another editor thinks "hides it away" is sufficient. That is all. There's no right or wrong here, only different grades of judgement. There definitely is no rule saying "all" minor details must be "avoided". (And who are you to say whether a detail is minor or not anyway?).

As for the specific matter, I mostly think this edit summary is severely overblown for a fourteen character difference - even if it makes the text "blow" past a recommended limitation, it still does so only by... 14 characters! As a very secondary consideration: since the location of the Arkenstone never comes up again in the plot summary, I would edge towards the shorter text. (Hint: If the summary only has space to talk about what is in Bilbo's pockets ONCE, it certainly should focus on what was in them during his Gollum meet...!)

Pinging CapnZapp (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing your feelings so clearly. My point is simply that there are dozens, probably hundreds of similar details which someone undoubtedly thinks significant, even specially important. The job of the summary is to give a brief, neutral overview of the basic outline of the plot. It isn't the case that it can be of any length; many editors feel it should never exceed a few hundred words, others that it should be under a third of the article, and certainly not dominating the text cited to other authors, scholars, and reviewers to demonstrate the work's notability: so that the article's quality goes down as the plot summary length goes up. The summary of course does not contribute to notability at all, and an all-plot article is deletion-ready. Perhaps with this background you may view extending the plot summary rather as a cost than as a benefit. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * This article used to regularly accumulate such edits, so every once in awhile, we would go do yet another overhaul to pare it back to something readable and devoid of trivial details. Regular editors of this page are more vigilant now. While there is subjectivity in what is trivial, asking the simple question of, “Does this help the reader understand the plot?” easily suggests paring away an edit such as is the subject of this conversation. Strebe (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Sales figures
With regard to this edit, I don’t think that source is reliable. Some online “lifestyle shopping” article is in no position to do the research needed (which, it turns out is very hard) and gives no reference. It doesn’t seems likely that another 42 million copies have sold since the 2012 estimates already cited in the article. I keep seeing numbers online in the neighborhood of 140 million, but they’re all citing each other, when they cite at all, in an echo chamber with no input from experts. Strebe (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It's the best I could come up with (obviously) and it is neither a primary source (not that the publishers seem to wave many figures about that I could see) nor a fan blog. Short of Mythlore or the like suddenly deciding to publish regular sales figures, I suppose we're dependent on some scholar happening to mention a number in their academic paper - and where would they get that from? Where did the 2012 sources get their data? Is there a respectable (but non-primary) industry source for such information? -- Verbarson talkedits 20:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It does not look even slightly reliable, the number plucked out of the air with no referent: US sales? Hardback? 2020? 2010? 2000? Or since when Who? Who knows? Why is there exactly one casually-mentioned number? We really can't do that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I have reverted it. -- Verbarson talkedits 21:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)